Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 189–209 | Cite as

Service Acquisition for Mobile Users in Future Internet

  • Giannis KoumoutsosEmail author
  • Kleanthis Thramboulidis


Mobility offers a great deal of advantages. However, mobile users are currently restricted by the network coverage of providers, their access network technologies and the networking capabilities of mobile devices. Moreover, mobile users have to be involved in time consuming and inflexible manual interactions with internet access service providers in order to sign long term contracts. In this paper, a novel framework, which liberates mobile users from predefined, long-term contracts, is presented. This framework enables mobile users to dynamically acquire any kind of Internet Service, irrespectively of their location and the mobile device used. This is based on the automation of the service acquisition process and the collaboration of providers that is required to satisfy end-users’ requests. The flexible communication and negotiation framework that was defined enables automated negotiations between all parties and can be used as basis towards automated service acquisition for mobile users in future internet.


Mobile service acquisition Providers cooperation Service provisioning Service roaming e-Negotiations 



This work has been funded by the Greek General Secretariat for Research and Technology in the context of PENED 2003 03ED723 project, (75 % EC, 25 % Greek Republic, according to 8.3, 3rd Framework program).


  1. 1.
    ITU-T Technology Watch Report 10. (2009). The Future Internet. ITU-T. Accessed 29 June 2012.
  2. 2.
    Munasinghe, K. S., & Jamalipour, A. (2009). Interworked WiMAX-3G cellular data networks: An architecture for mobility management and performance evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 8(4), 1847–1853.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gizelis, C. A., & Vergados, D. D. (2011). A survey of pricing schemes in wireless networks. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 13(1), 126–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bari, F., & Leung, V. (2006). Service delivery over heterogeneous wireless systems: Networks selection aspects. International conference on Wireless communications and mobile computing, 251–256, doi: 10.1145/1143549.1143600.
  5. 5.
    Collins, K., Mangold, S., & Muntean, G. M. (2010). Supporting mobile devices with wireless LAN/MAN in large controlled environments. IEEE Communications Magazine, 48(12), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castle, S. (2007). EU commissioner seeks to shake up telecom industry. International Herald Tribune, Accessed 13 June 2011.
  7. 7.
    Shen, C., Du, W., Atkinson, R., & Kwong, H. K. (2012). Policy based mobility and flow management for IPv6 heterogeneous wireless networks. Wireless Personal Communications, 62(2), 329–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demestichas, P., Katidiotis, A., Petromanolakis, D., & Stavroulaki, V. (2010). Management system for terminals in the wireless B3G world wireless networks. Wireless Personal Communications, 53, 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jamalipour, A., & Munasinghe, K. (2010). Network mobility (NEMO) support in interworking heterogeneous mobile networks. WCNC IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, 11(4), 1–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magagula, L., Chan, H., & Falowo, O. (2010). Achieving seamless mobility through handover coordination in a network-based localized mobility managed heterogeneous environment. IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 21(1), 2505–2510.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siddiqui, F., & Zeadally, S. (2006). Mobility management across hybrid wireless networks: Trends and challenges. Computer Communications, 29(9), 1363–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lampropoulos, K., & Denazis, S. (2011). Identity management directions in future internet. IEEE Communications Magazine, 49(12), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoo, P. (2009). Co-opetition enabling security for cooperative networks: Authorizing composition agreement negotiations between ambient networks. Wireless Personal Communications, 49(3), 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petric, A., & Jezic, G. (2010). Multi-attribute auction model for agent-based content trading in telecom markets. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on knowledge-based and intelligent information and engineering systems: Part I, pp. 261–270.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koumoutsos, G., & Thramboulidis, K. (2009). A knowledge-based framework for complex, proactive and service-oriented e-negotiation systems. Electronic Commerce Research, 9(4), 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheng, Y., Leon-Garcia, A., & Foster, I. (2008). Towards an autonomic service management framework: A holistic vision of SOA, AON, and autonomic computing. IEEE Communications Magazine, 46(5), 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strobel, M., & Weinhardt, C. (2003). The montreal taxonomy for electronic negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kephart, J. O., & Das, R. (2007). Achieving self-management via utility functions. IEEE Internet Computing, 11(1), 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Skylogiannis, T., Antoniou, G., Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G., & Bikakis, A. (2007). DR-NEGOTIATE—A system for automated agent negotiation with defeasible logic-based strategies. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 63(2), 362–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benyoucef, M., & Rinderle, S. (2006). Modeling e-negotiation processes for a service oriented architecture. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Desai, N., Mallya, U. A., Chopra, K. A., & Singh, P. M. (2005). Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(12), 1015–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tian, M., Voigt, T., Naumowicz, T., Ritter, H., & Schiller, J. (2003). Performance impact of web services on Internet servers. ASTED international conference on parallel and distributed computing and systems.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skorin-Kapov, L., Mosmondor, M., Dobrijevic, O., & Matijasevic, M. (2007). Application-level QoS negotiation and signaling for advanced multimedia services in the IMS. IEEE Communications Magazine, 45(7), 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, X., & Schulzrinne, H. (1999). RNAP: A resource negotiation and pricing protocol. NOSSDAV, pp. 77–93.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tequila Consortium. (2001). SrNP: Service negotiation protocol. Accessed 10 June 2010.
  26. 26.
    Nguyen, T. M. T., Boukhatem, N., Doudane, Y. G., & Pujolle, G. (2002). COPS-SLS: A service level negotiation protocol for the internet. IEEE Communications Magazine, 40(5), 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen, J. C., McAuley, A., Sarangan, V., Baba, S., & Ohba, Y. (2002). Dynamic Service Negotiation Protocol (DSNP) and Wireless Diffserv. ICC, 2, 1033–1038.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Paschke, A., Dietrich, J., Kuhla, K. (2005). A Logic Based SLA Management Framework. Proceedings of the Semantic Web and Policy, Workshop 68–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of PatrasPatraGreece

Personalised recommendations